Claimant v Vitality Corporate Services Limited

Withdrawn by the claimant at lunch time on the second day of the hearing and dismissed upon withdrawal.

Tribunal found that the protected disclosures (email exchanges and whistleblowing document) had no impact at all upon the respondent's conduct. The claimant was unable to demonstrate that the alleged detriments were because of the protected disclosures.

The tribunal was entirely satisfied that the claimant's protected disclosures had no impact at all upon the respondent's conduct, let alone being the principal reason for the dismissal. Claim under section 103A ERA 1996 not well-founded.

Tribunal found the respondent's communications and actions did not create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant. The respondent's approach to vaccination and testing was objectively reasonable and not harassment related to the claimant's philosophical belief.

The respondent's policies (promoting vaccination, requiring office attendance, and PCR testing for unvaccinated employees) applied to all staff regardless of whether they held the claimant's philosophical belief. No less favourable treatment of any particular group holding any particular views was demonstrated.

The claimant was unable to show group or individual disadvantage. Those affected by the testing requirement included people who were unvaccinated for many reasons unrelated to the claimant's belief. Even if disadvantage existed, the PCPs were objectively justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims: facilitating collaboration and creating a safe working environment.

The tribunal found a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence through the respondent's withdrawal of discretionary company sick pay and the failure to rectify this in the grievance process. The decision to withdraw sick pay because the illness related to the return to office dispute (before any disciplinary finding) was so outrageous that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it and was not based on correct matters. This breach went to a central aspect of the contract (pay) and the claimant did not affirm the contract but resigned in response.